Talk:Gamma ray

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Quinhonk (talk · contribs)

Archives: Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Incorrect information

Consider that "beta decay" can refer either to negatron or positron decay. If it is negatron decay, an antineutrino is emitted; if it is positron decay, it is a neutrino.

Because a beta decay is accompanied by the emission of a neutrino which also carries energy away, the beta spectrum does not have sharp lines, but instead is a broad peak. Hence from beta decay alone it is not possible to probe the different energy levels found in the nucleus.

should read

Because a beta [negative] decay is accompanied by the emission of a[n anti-]neutrino which also carries energy away, the beta spectrum does not have sharp lines, but instead is a broad peak. Hence from beta decay alone it is not possible to probe the different energy levels found in the nucleus. Bobcat167 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, instead of sources, that section should be more about causable production. The introduction is indeed mixed in describing radiation itself. Quinhonk (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Effects and body response

The section 'Effects and body response' contains primary references to two mouse based studies. This field, radiation-induced cancer studies is very complex and could be construed as medical information. In my opinion only reviews should be cited here. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Risk assessment

The section "Risk assessment" has 4 paragraphs, but three of them are not about gamma rays. I propose to delete them. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Causable source?

Quinhonk, what is a causable source? I don't see this term used anywhere else in physics literature. Where are the Talk page discussions that you say in your edit comment require this term to be used? --Chetvorno^TALK 12:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous discussions, alpha and beta particles are discussed on the formation of gamma radiation (or gamma ray which sounds more like a linear ray than radiative in radian). The present article only focused on one possible explanation on gamma ray formation, which is radiative decay, but bombardment of different particles, including annihilation both creates gamma radiation with vectors. So, it is not like "source" in a way that is literal, but causality and causation that can create the "source", hence, causable source. Quinhonk (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And for each different scenarios, the causality can be more diverse and from different causal chains, so "causable" only implies the known scenarios, without implying a single mechanism that is a "source" of the radiation. Quinhonk (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources" generally refers to macroscopic 'everyday' origins, not microscopic models. The current section called "Sources" matches this concept. Among the sources mentioned is cosmic rays, your "bombardment of different particles".

If you have reliable sources indicating that annihilation is a significant source, please add it here or in the article. It may well be that annihilation is significant in say interstellar space. I see no reason to change the section title, and certainly not to "causable source" which we don't understand. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]